Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andrzejbanas (talk | contribs) at 13:19, 19 September 2024 (→Title " horror cinema" vs films of [country/continent]": Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews


Today's featured article requests

Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(8 more...)

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists
WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
Belgian cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

Requested move at Talk:Dark Phoenix (film)#Requested move 12 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dark Phoenix (film)#Requested move 12 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franchises and film series

I've recently proposed an article for deletion and it was removed as being "obviously notable". In this case it was Rosemary's Baby (franchise). While I do recognize that there are numerous adaptations of the book into theatrical films, television films, etc. but there is no commentary on it as a franchise as a whole.

There is definitely content discussion, the novel, the films, and television series, etc. But even with the films, there is not content discussing them as a whole. Searching it as a discussion on a series yields little to no results for an overarching series. Compare this with the article on Dracula (Universal film series), which goes into specifics of the films as a series and tries to have commentary on a series as a whole, and less about individual films copied and pasted from their respective articles.

In short, these articles fail WP:SIGCOV, specifically that it addresses the topic directly. And that the articles tend to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE as they just repeat production and individual reception of individual works, but not the idea of a franchise as a whole. It also fails WP:UNDUE as applying information such as comparing their gross, cast, characters with no real world context to why its important we know these things. Sure, we can find sources of what the budget of the first Rosemary's Baby was to Apartment 7A, but we have no MOS related discussion for film series specifically so just comparing these on our own comes off as trivial.

Going to tag @Mushy Yank: and @DisneyMetalhead: on this as they both were contributors to article in question and would like them to give their input on how they feel this article and articles like it currently follow the above standards. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, For the record. I did remove the PROD tag but did not say it was "obviously notable"". What I said was "Clearly unsuitable for PROD". I have no opinion on whether you can call it a franchise or series. Feel free to rename it . I don't think I ever edited the page apart from DePRoDing it but the page seems notable as a Wikipedia:SETINDEX.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Just to clarify, my issue is not what it is labeled. My issue is that there is no information on the topic as a series/franchise/anything-similar term and that as there is none, we apply information with no weight of what it is, what the focus should be, and that it even exists as there is no sources that is miniscule content discussing it as a series or as a whole at all. As for SETINDEX, they give examples like Dodge Charger, which I'd assume has more articles covering it as a more general wide-meaning term. In this case, we do not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...you're kidding me. @Andrzejbanas it seems that you frequently get hung up on this idea. The Rosemary's Baby franchise is indeed a franchise, and it is indeed notable. I don't understand why you move to deleting content/pages/details on VARIOUS pages (not just this one). DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side-note it is called a "franchise" because there is a TV miniseries as well.... DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I've stated the rules it's breaking. I didn't arhue about terminology, but there is no wide spread coverage of it as that. Which makes it fail the rules i stated above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DisneyMetalhead, which three sources provide SIGCOV of the franchise/body of work (as a whole) in RS? Valereee (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: thank you for the question! There a Sportskeeda and Cinema Express which explicitly call it a franchise; while Vulture talks about the juxtaposition of the Rosemary's Baby IP to "saturated by commercially safe franchises". Meanwhile, 1997 Entertainment Weekly and 2019 ScreenRant articles discusses how the sequel book (and its TV movie adaptation) shies in comparison to the original movie and the novel. Further detailed reading at The New York Post discusses the miniseries expansion of the original releases (and where it failed). The most detailed example of one article talking at length about the entire franchise that I had sourced on the article in question however, is LitReactor where the journalist compares the book to the movie to the miniseries. I will use these same sources to further reference that this is a franchise. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the argument isn't really whether someone is calling it a franchise but whether the franchise itself is notable? I'm not familiar enough with film to know whether multiple notable entries a franchise make the franchise notable. For authors, multiple notable books generally is considered to prove an author is notable. I'm willing to be pointed at a WikiProject Film PAG that indicates multiple notable entries in a franchise confer notability on the franchise, but if that's not the guideline here, we need three instances of SIGCOV of the franchise in RS in order to support a claim to notability. LitReactor looks like a blog? Valereee (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @DisneyMetalhead, forgot to ping. I generally try to ping when the other person pings me, but if you've subscribed to this I'll try to remember not to. I don't care whether you ping me or not, I've subscribed. Valereee (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it's okay to chime in here, I'm just about to step out, but yes, this is kind of what I've been finding. Rosemary's Baby the main film is a major motion picture and novel, and of course spawned sequels and other offshoots. I can find reviews making one off comparisons to the original novel or series, but I struggled finding a lot of commentary on it as a franchise as a whole. This basically my point with the topics surrounding film series, there is plenty of information about some films in a series individually, but sometimes finding discussion about is a whole grows complicated. Like for Sartana, I wouldn't have attempted anything there if I had did not have this source which is pages about it as a series/franchise/cycle/whatever. I'm glad what I've been trying to address before is finally coming forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem tends to be that your explanations of your concerns are often extremely wordy. You can see how Indagate and I both got to the heart of the issue -- notability of the franchise as a whole -- in a sentence. It takes longer to write shorter, but it's a worthwhile skill to develop. Even this post you literally could have replaced with I struggled finding a lot of commentary on it as a franchise as a whole. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The franchise (starting with the novel and the first movie) has been credited with influencing modern horror and one of the greatest horror movies ever made (example: here). That same source details how the sequel didn't live up to the book source nor the original movie. The LitReactor source states that it is a "columns, reviews, and resource for authors". The author of that particular article is playwright and author himself. The formatting of the page is odd, but the author and its topic is notable. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assistance @Valereee: and @Indagate: -- WP:SIGCOV details the different general notability bullets. I know when initially beginning on the topic I followed "presumed" notability (because there are various media releases), but I had also been under the impression that the variety of reliable sources unrelated to the topic provided significant coverage. I will keep looking for more that discuss the whole franchise. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: you choose to ignore sources that disagree with your opinion is the issue with your mentality here (see the sources I shared below), m8! "wide spread coverage" is not what determines reliability and notability. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a wider issue based on list of articles created on DisneyMetalhead's user page, many franchise articles of barely notables films and no references discussing the franchise as a whole in them. Indagate (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These specific examples are indeed articles I have been involved with -- but which articles are you declaratively stating are "barely notable films"? And what makes them "barely notable"? Furthermore, which ones don't have the references you are referring to?
This is an ongoing/recurring situation that User:Andrzejbanas has been involved with. See the various discussions at Talk:Universal Monsters for more.
DisneyMetalhead (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to 1 indent per reply so less confusing to read. A random example is Not Quite Human (film series), no value added to the individual film articles, reception section has basically nothing in it, no significant coverage in references provided of the series as a whole, doesn't seem necessary as an article. Indagate (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out @Indagate:. I am going through each article to find additional sources that discuss the film series/franchise as a whole, and adding them to each page. I have added several at that identified page. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying, but looking at sources added to that example, LA Times is reliable but not significant, "What's on Disney Plus" looks not really reliable and routine mention of the series, Mutant Reviewers looks not reliable and only covers first film. We need significant coverage of the franchise for it to be notable enough for a WP article, that example does not have it. Indagate (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep looking for more sources. The sources I provided combined seem to cover the film series, but my question is for films/franchises/etc which are older, does the variety of sources on the page not detail the topic as whole sufficiently to warrant that is a significant series? DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian details the book, movie, and miniseries, in addition to the "Michael Bay reboot" which ended up becoming Apartment 7A. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tumbling block here because, for me at least, this one seems to be providing some overview, but not really on the topic as a whole. unless I'm missing something here. @DisneyMetalhead: Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

Just to return to this, as I feel like editors have sort of understood my point and want to be caught up on it. WP:SIGCOV suggests we do not not just need brief one line mentions of a series or a franchise, but that the subject as a franchise as a whole. We can't really put weight on a series or a franchise unless it goes into discussion on it. This is kind of why I'd like to apply some sort of addition to MOS:FILM or perhaps a new MOS for film series so we can address articles essential for a film series/franchise for general understanding. Currently, our MOS has about one line about whether franchise articles should be created, and its very lacking in cohesiveness on what to do there (using infoboxes? crew? box office? recpetion? etc.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Very strongly OPPOSE. There are a number or reliable sources that refer to the IP as a franchise. Examples include, but aren't limited to: [Sporskeeda, Cinema Express, Vulture. I will take this to the associated talkpage.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @DisneyMetalhead , I've seen these sources. This also, in fact all I found. The issue with this is this is all I've found too and you do not apply them within the article or had not at the time. With this, per [[WP:WEIGHT], you go I to excessive details about financial comparisons, characters, etc. that address these fila individually, but not as a franchise/series/whatever. This is what my issue is as we can't take these sources and expand them based on...well, nothing I can find. In fact, that Vulture article has nothing about it as a franchise. The Cinema Express doesn't have anything critical or historical to say about the franchise other than its a franchise and is an article about a poster being released. So sure, those are the three I found, and they are all focused on different topics without WP:SIGCOV of the topic considered. Please reconsider as all the information currently is just a regurgitation of information about individual elements, and almost nothing as this perceived series. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point here, as stated on various other articles is that you don't get to decide which sources you like/don't like -- based off of them having a different opinion than you. As explained to you before, a more constructive approach would be to request more/better sources. This is exactly the discussion that occurred at Talk:Universal Monsters for years. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying whether I like it or not, I'm asking if they follow the current rules. if you are taking the time to reply, please address how you feel the content applies to the rules over perceived intentions, and assume good faith. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have referred to other articles and their topics in my response to Valereee above. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of Ivan the Terrible (1945 film)?

This article is about one film that was separated into two parts; these two parts are, as far as I'm aware, always covered together and I don't think this film would qualify as a film series. The first part was released in 1945, while the second part was completed in 1946 and released in 1958; it may be misleading to viewers to have both films be covered under the release date of the first film. Since Ivan the Terrible (1917 film) exists, I cannot rename the film to just "Ivan the Terrible (film)"; I was wondering if Ivan the Terrible (Eisenstein) would be an acceptable rename, or if this would conflict with naming guidelines. Jaguarnik (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like "(two-part film)"? Seems like an exceptional enough case that NCFILM need not strictly apply. Nardog (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I wouldn’t change the title, which is pretty standard and clear. Yes, it has two parts but it’s generally considered to be one film. Certainly not a film series. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are explanatory footnotes clarifying tie-ins with other films appropriate?

There is currently a content dispute / slow-moving edit-war on Alien: Romulus regarding three explanatory footnotes in the plot summary clarifying plot points in the film that tie directly to past Alien films (spoiler alert). The disputed notes can be found here: [1]. The sole editor expressly opposed to the changes has reverted several users, claiming that the notes violate MOS:FILMPLOT. You are invited to weigh in at Talk:Alien: Romulus#Plot notes. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: As can be seen from the talk page, no one else supports the addition of notes yet. Reverted for WP:STATUSQUO, including IP sock edits. ภץאคгöร 17:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's accurate, but it is also true that no one else opposes the addition of notes, and also true that more than one editor has attempted to implement the edits (indicating implicit consensus). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only two editors attempted to implement (the IP sock and InfiniteNexus). Additionally I think sentences like "I honestly do not think the footnotes are necessary." seem to oppose. ภץאคгöร 18:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment ended with But I don't see it causing harm by being added. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like that user, I don't see any "harm", anything harmful. This does not change the fact that the user thinks the notes are unnecessary. ภץאคгöร 11:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't watched the film yet so can't comment on the actual issue, but if the scene has a very clear connection, then a regular note is fine. If it requires some OR, then find a source online that makes that connection for you and add it to the note. Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is already done in another section, some sources reporting similarities and connections to previous installments for minor points. The user wants to add same info to the plot section of this standalone installment. ภץאคгöร 17:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources directly corroborating the footnotes are included in the notes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, a note should only be added to help explain the plot with information that is not from the plot itself. If the plot summary can be understood without the note then the connection should probably be mentioned in the production section (or not at all if it is just trivia). - adamstom97 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to have to agree that a well written plot summary should not have to clarify things with notes or trivial mentions of evens in other films unless just to say "Following the events of Star Wars, The Empire Starts Back begins on the planet hoth..." etc. That said, there are special cases where i've broken this rule of thumb for myself like with Tetsuo: The Iron Man. If the narrative is very not obvious or abstract, it might be good to share that to readers. In the case of these films, I don't think we need them. Material like this is probably better explained in a more overarching Alien franchise article on how the films do or do not connect with each other, as its cool to spot these references, it's not essential to understanding the plot. It may enhance it, but plots are about getting the basic beats of what happens to the user, not content like this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Once Upon a Time in the West, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Alien franchise, and what is included

There's some discussion at Talk:Prometheus_(2012_film)#Fifth_or_seventh_in_franchise? as to whether the "Alien franchise" is commonly understood to include the AvP films or not, and whether the associated installment number in the lead should be clarified. Outside input has been requested. Scribolt (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oi oi saveloy, must be at least two, ideally 3, Alien film fans here that can provide some quick input? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commented. TompaDompa (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

I have noticed a large number of changes to film articles' short descriptions. Recent examples:

I don't know if this is part of a project to make these changes. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film gives no guidance on short description content. It seems to me that firstly there should be a standard; and secondly there should be discussion of the "by [director]" part. This strongly favours auteur theory, primarily crediting the director as the creator of a film, a view which is not universally accepted for every film - see Auteur#Criticism. Perhaps "directed by [director]" would be better. Has this style (date, nationality, by director) been discussed and agreed? Masato.harada (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SDCONTENT, the main purpose of a short description is to differentiate it from other similarly named articles in search results. Editors making these changes may not be aware of that. Often the two most important identifiers, year of release and media type (e.g. 1979 film), are going to distinguish the search result to the extent of what's needed.
You could then optionally insert either "British" or "directed by Francis Megahy", but not both. Both would be overkill 99% of the time. Per WP:SDLENGTH, the goal is to stay within 40 characters when possible to avoid truncation, so in other words, avoid unnecessary detail. The director is usually less controversial than nationality, but either would probably be fine to use. Just keep in mind there will be films that have more than one director. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A film article using {{Infobox film}} will have it's short description automatically generated in the format of essentially <year> <country> film with {{Infobox film/short description}} (this is hardcoded into the infobox). Past consensus was to remove the inclusion of a director in this auto-generated SD, so this is the work of an editor overriding that generated one. You can find the past discussions about excluding director in the short description here and here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW (i.e. I'm not advocating for this), WP:SDEXAMPLES explicitly includes, "2017 film by Jordan Peele" as one of their examples. If including the director shouldn't be the default, then I might recommend that that guidance be updated or clarified. DonIago (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed the example at SDEXAMPLES here citing the two discussions I linked above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tobyhoward talk, you seem to be one of the most active editors inserting "by [director]". Perhaps you have a comment? Masato.harada (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:SDCONTENT had given the example of "2017 film by Jordan Peele" (now removed, as discussed above) I had respected that and used "by director" in my SD edits. If the consensus is now that a film's SD should not include the director, then I respect that. It would be helpful for WP:SDCONTENT to give a clear example of what a film's SD should be. Currently the only mention of film in WP:SDCONTENT is the example "1964 musical film". So that's got genre in it too! I'm not sure that including genre is particularly meaningful or helpful, or indeed can be done in any consistent way. Tobyhoward (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tobyhoward: This is super helpful knowing you were looking over at SDCONTENT for these examples. I've gone ahead an altered that "1964 musical film" example too. It has been a while since I was aware of the past infobox discussions I linked, but if I recall (and I'll go back soon to look them over), the conensus was to not have a director added automatically, but there still could be cases where overriding the auto generated one to include a director might be beneficial. I feel this discussion here will lead to creating some guidance for it at MOS:FILM. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edit to WP:SDCONTENT. "1964 American film" is clear. Some explicit guidance on what to do when it's a multi-country film would be helpful – e.g. simply listing all the countries, separated by "/"? And yes, it would extremely helpful to have an unambiguous SD format included at MOS:FILM, which currently has nothing about SD as far as I can see. Tobyhoward (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just encountered this with the television infobox, which generates a similar SD, and changed that code to state "multi-national" when a film has multiple countries. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused, as the previous example ("2017 film by Jordan Peele") obviously did not include the nationality, which led me to believe it shouldn't be included. While I didn't make a point of doing so, as with Toby, I often updated film descriptions based on the seemingly unambiguous example that was provided.
Frankly, if it was a choice, I'd prefer the Peele formatting to the American film formatting. Either way, I hope genre can be left out of it, as that's contentious enough often enough without extending it to the short description. DonIago (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This can all definitely be rehashed, but generally speaking, from the discussion linked regarding the auto-generated SD, consensus was to avoid using directors in the SD. I think some wording in the MOS will be helpful here because as it has been noted, a director might be more useful to describe a film than nationality and overwriting the auto one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The point of the short description is to be short and concise as possible. "A film by Jordan Peele" will be displayed at the beginning of the film in the credits (and reliable third party sources use this phrase), so I think it makes sense to concisely describe the film as such here. Adding the year is acceptable, if it's not already in the page title, since it would just be redundantly duplicated. Adding the film's nationality doesn't seem too insightful? Maybe if it is non-English. Mike Allen 21:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My second concern, at the start of this discussion, was the use of "by [director]". If we agree a new format which includes director name, can I suggest "directed by [director]"? Masato.harada (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think one of the reasons that we're using "by" is that short descriptions shouldn't exceed 40 characters, so any space we can reasonably save, we should. DonIago (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all for this discussion. Are we moving to the consensus "[1946] film by Joe Bloggs" / "[1946] film by Joe Bloggs and Fred Smith"? where "1946" is only needed if it is not in the article title? No country name(s), no genre, "directed by" => "by" to conserve space. The inclusion of the director per "the auteur" seems controversial, but in terms of pure information seems sensible to me to include in the SD. Tobyhoward (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a notice at Template talk:Infobox film about this so if anyone is watch there, they can chime in to this discussion about possibly altering what that template generates for an SD. I will also leave a notice at MOS:FILM noting that there is talk about creating MOS wording about SDs here in this discussion (we should proceed with that here too). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Missed a lot of the replies, but I still think a point getting overlooked is that what's needed for one film may not be what's needed for another film. The primary use case for a short description is to help differentiate the title from other similar titles (and we're not just talking about other film titles). Even when other similar films appear in search results, the year of release will be the #1 attribute that needs to be listed in the short description, followed by the phrase "film". If you only had these two attributes, you'd probably be fine in almost every situation.
    There's optionally more space for including the director, country, or something else, but again, these are optional and not required from my POV. The template, if it's going to hard code anything, should only be doing the year and "film", then leaving the optional part up to local consensus. We can help steer that local consensus by putting something in MOS:FILM if the project thinks that's necessary, but that may be overkill. Personally, I find the director more informative than country, and definitely more informative than "multi-national". --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The primary use case for a short description is to help differentiate the title from other similar titles" – yes, I've seen this said several times, but I'm not sure the "primariness" (?!) is backed up by WP:SDPURPOSE, which says SDs provide (quote):
    • a very brief indication of the field covered by the article
    • a short descriptive annotation
    • a disambiguation in searches, especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields
    I think there is a case for a style which does include more infirmation than "year" and "film". cf the example at WP:SDCONTENT for a novel: "1988 novel by Penelope Fitzgerald". It would be good to have some consistency with other art forms. Tobyhoward (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right here in WP:SDCONTENT, it states:

    Editors should keep in mind that short descriptions are meant to distinguish an article from similarly named articles in search results, and not to define the subject.

    The points made in SDPURPOSE are all covered by a simple annotation of something like "1979 film"; this is a brief indication of the field ("film"), short descriptive annotation ("1979 film"), and covers the disambiguation in searches in a vast majority of situations. Totally subjective as to how detailed you want to get with the annotation, as I stated previously. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, my mistake, I didn't spot that sentence. Thanks! Tobyhoward (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with "(year) film" if that's how we want to handle things in cases where we consider it sufficient disambiguation. DonIago (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for A Hard Day's Night (film)

A Hard Day's Night (film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Rocky Balboa (film)

Rocky Balboa (film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing sports films

So roughly two years ago, its archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79, I brought up this article as being a complete disaster of OR and with no one seeming to have any idea what to do about it. It was suggested someone AfD it but that didn't happen. Two years on and its actively gotten worse. Can someone deal with this for AfD because its irreparably original research with no criteria and all the arguments made in the archived post regarding violations of about a dozen wiki rules are now much more apparent. –– Lid(Talk) 11:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone around? –– Lid(Talk) 02:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason why you can't open the AfD? DonIago (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly its because I'm over a decade removed from when i really editied wwikipedia. I'm a former admin. I don't feel up for running a whole AfD, especially not one where I'm dealing with people I don't know in topics i've long been removed from and fear of having to explain at length why an article with over 300 references that has existed for a long time needs to be deleted as its not fit for purpose (including how the two related articles, sports films and list of sports films contain entirely different contents than the grossing article which seems some sort of obsessive fan project. –– Lid(Talk) 07:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant List of films based on sports books which, again makes much more sense. –– Lid(Talk) 07:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quote myself from roughly a year ago over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films based on television series: It is plain to see that this article, as so many box office lists before it, was inspired by the only such list on Wikipedia that is actually of high quality: List of highest-grossing films (a WP:Featured list). The problem with the proliferation of these lists is that they are created without understanding what it is that makes that list work, and they often just copy the structure without considering whether it is appropriate for the newly-created list—or indeed, considering whether the new list should exist at all. The result is that we have a plethora of poorly maintained, straight-up bad lists with myriad problems including—mainly—sourcing issues. This is, well, churnalism—or I suppose online one would call it content farming. It is the assembly of pure WP:RAWDATA by way of WP:Original research at the whims of Wikipedia editors who have mined box office databases for the data and come up with a new angle from which to slice it more-or-less arbitrarily. It is a scourge. TompaDompa (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree the list article seems to be a mess, on reading it, the idea and context of what is a sports film seems iffy regardless (Forrest Gump is a sports film, and the sport is ping-pong? who knew?) I'll see if I can take a look at it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let editors from previous discussions on this know, i've gone ahead and nominated the article for deletion. @TompaDompa:, @Erik:, and @Lid:. The discussion can be found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing sports films here.Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that dumpster fire of a list article hasn't been deleted already. It is an indiscriminate list article, it still includes fictional sports and most of the films listed happen to include sports events but are not actually sports films in any meaningful sense. It is seems entirely unsalvagable. -- 109.79.171.34 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings discussions

Could someone point me at a couple of prior discussions on ratings? I am not a film buff (far from it), but I've several times during the last year or so needed to find out the rating for a current film, and I find that my process looks like this:

  • Go to Wikipedia article. (There has always been a Wikipedia article.)
  • Find the iMDb link.
  • Go to iMDb.
  • Look around until I can find the rating. (It doesn't happen often enough for me to remember their format.)

The process I'd prefer is:

  • Go to Wikipedia article.
  • Find ratings in the infobox or in a ==Ratings== section. Bonus points if it's not just the US rating system.

I remember seeing discussions about this many years ago, and all I remember is an editor asserting that it was completely impossible for editors to put more than one rating system into an article, and that since only one could be included, that would end up being the US rating system and excluding the entire rest of the world would be bad. Obviously, that's nonsense, so let's hope that I've misremembered it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is MOS:FILMRATING insufficient? DonIago (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A MOS page isn't a discussion. I was hoping to find the discussions, not the 'written rule'.
The earliest version of the page (August 2006, then at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines) asserts that ratings are now excluded from the infobox because there are too many rating systems (Category:Motion picture rating systems lists 27, all of which are never relevant to a single film), and it's too complicated to decide which rating applies to which versions, if there have been multiple versions of a film (all similar subjects use the original release, e.g., first edition of a book), and that the information should be included in the text of the article.
It says that this change happened "as consensus has shifted over the years", but provides no links to any relevant discussions. I have found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 2#Ratings, which says that editors in that discussion favored the inclusion of ratings in the infobox by a margin of 6:4, and which I found because it is linked at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 2#Template:Infobox Film rating as evidence that ratings information has been discussed and isn't wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was probably the discussion at hand at the time. Generally speaking, you are welcome to suggest an addition to the infobox, but note that general response to any additions to the infobox will likely be shot down as the infobox is already considered too large. Personally, the ratings would only be useful in a contemporary sense, so many films are not re-submitted and do not follow contemporary standards of what is "acceptable", most of it would require explanation for anything that isn't contemporary and would date fast. Personally, looking for a film rating, typing a films name into google and rating gives me the general answer for your own queries. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Beetlejuice

Beetlejuice has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

I have nominated E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of film director and actor collaborations

Today I looked at List of film director and actor collaborations, which survived AFD in 2019 following a cleanup I did, and found it absolutely messy again. More content was added to it, around 561 MBs' worth, and I basically rolled that back to a clean version post-AFD closure. Since it was such a big rollback, I'm notifying here for transparency. See discussion thread at Talk:List of film director and actor collaborations § Rollback. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filmographies and Titles for Multi-country filmakers

I've recently been expanding Jesús Franco filmography to flesh it out with some sources. One issue that has come up is that as Franco has directed several films whose production remains a bit hazy, how should we handle some film titles? One film titled Kiss Me Killer had that English title release on a Dutch home video. The film does not appear to have have a native English-language release, but has two other titles its known by from theatrical releases in France and Italy. WP:NCFF has good standards to follow for when we have films in an article, but as many of these works will not like be getting an article any time soon, what is the best method for titling films like this?

I see that there is Eiji Tsuburaya filmography which has the titles presented in different languages. I'm not crazy about the jumping back and forth between tables to get the information, but this presents further difficulty as Franco worked all around Europe, so titles will not just be Spanish for example. Any thoughts on a solution? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:List of accolades received by If Beale Street Could Talk#Requested move 29 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of accolades received by If Beale Street Could Talk#Requested move 29 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Les Films du losange#Requested move 29 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Les Films du losange#Requested move 29 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:National Film Award for Best Short Film#Requested move 29 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Film Award for Best Short Film#Requested move 29 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 06:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:The Acolyte (TV series) § Survey

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Acolyte (TV series) § Survey. Editors are debating whether or not to include a rumored casting. Your input would be appreciated. GoneIn60 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actreeses

Actress is the common word used in common speech. Wikipedia uses common speech and we should retain the actress name in categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this pertaining to? Mike Allen 21:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the discussion, please? Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting Featured Article review: E.T.

If anyone has the capacity to assist, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial needs some light-to-medium work to bring it back up to FA standards.

Requested move at Talk:De-aging in motion pictures and television#Requested move 3 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:De-aging in motion pictures and television#Requested move 3 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Pokémon Heroes § Recent changes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pokémon Heroes § Recent changes, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection of actor to film

I've noticed a few instances recently of a link to an actor being a redirect to a film they're in. Example: Nancie Wait redirects (with no proper # target) to the film Au Pair Girls. This practice seems unhelpful and misleading to me (even with a working #). I'd be interested to know what others think. Thanks! Tobyhoward (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I loathe it. What often happens is the name of an up-and-coming actor is redirected to the article about a work they appeared in, and then they appear in another work but the article about the new work has a link to the redirect, so anybody who clicks on it or looks up their name is led to the article about the old work, which is often what they're less famous for, and since it's a blue link, it lowers the chance of an article about them being created. It's completely counterproductive and helps no one. Nardog (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is ridiculous to be doing this although it seems to be standard practice for some strange reason. Redirects should go to something substantial about a person, not just a passing mention of a role they played at some point in their career. It is unhelpful to readers who are surprised at the destination they land on and the nothing they get when they click a blue link or search for a name. It is better to be a red link. I've tried getting these deleted in the past at WP:RfD and usually the result is keep. About the only solution is to create an article there if the person can meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and baffling, that WP:RfD favoured keep. Was the rationale Thou Shalt Not Break Links (even Stupid Ones), or something else? Tobyhoward (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much "redirects are cheap" better to have than not. Might have had more chance of deleting if I'd had support for the delete. Maybe with some consensus we can get the stupid ones deleted. Some actors redirects might go to a location with more than just a credit mention, but most don't. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap, in the sense that having an article would be worth far more and a red link helps to encourage article creation. Even a stub is preferable to a redirect, if the subject is notable. And if the subject is not notable...then why is it being linked in the first place? It seems very counter-productive, and borne out of the aversion some editors have to red links. I was not even aware of this practice until I came across this discussion. It needs to be nipped in the bud, perhaps we can add a sentence to the MOS? Betty Logan (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's even a template for it: {{R from cast member}}. A sentence in MOS wouldn't help. The only way we could fully prevent it is get consensus to make them eligible for speedy deletion. Nardog (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that use of the template for this purpose is not justified. Belonging the cast of a film is clearly not the same thing as being a "member of a group", where the notability is derived from the notability of the group. {{R from cast member}} is a poorly named redirect with clear overreach beyond the template's intended purpose. I think having a clear guideline in the MOS would enhance the pathway towards a consensus for speedy deletion of these redirects, including this template redirect. If the project does not have an established position on this matter it will be much more difficult to get them deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:EGG applies to piped links but there really isn't a difference how a reader gets to a surprise destination either by a pipe or a redirect. WP:Redirect#D10 says "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." That is the closest guideline for deleting actor to cast list links. The biggest problems is the definition of "virtually no information" and RfD reviewers seem to interpret that as being synonymous with "absolutely no information at all" which means just a mere mention of the name at the target is enough to negate that delete reason. I think that this project could work to get D10 updated and have a clear guideline in the project about this issue to back up changes to other guidelines. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An ultra-literal interpretation of WP:Redirect#D10 seems to contradict WP:REDLINK:

It may be possible to turn the red link into a redirect to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see Notability – Whether to create standalone pages). But please do not "kill" red links by redirect because their red color (annoying to some readers) seems to scream for a fix. It is easy to turn any red link blue by creating a redirect, but valid red links exist for a reason, and they are the "buds" from which new Wikipedia articles grow.

If we didn't have an article about John Lennon, I understand why it might be sensible to redirect to The Beatles, but you would never expect an article about Top Gun to house substantive information about Tom Cruise. Perhaps WP:Redirect#D10 needs to reference WP:REDLINK, and then once the main guideline in fixed we can clarify the position in relation to cast members. Once that is done it would hopefully be straightforward to delete these types of redirects. Betty Logan (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying again at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 16#Casey Simpson Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can see that, though it's probably better done coordinating with WP:Actors. Nardog (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major accessibility and sorting problems on "List of (nation) films of YYYY" articles

Please see this discussion, which applies to many film list articles in this project, such as List of Hong Kong films of 2024, List of Japanese films of 2024, List of British films of 2024, and many other pages. I have to assume that this issue has been raised in the past, but it is unclear why it persists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title "_____ horror cinema" vs _____ films of [country/continent]"

Probably a non-issue, but I figured I'd ask around before moving forward. I was about to move parts of the Horror film article to either Asian horror cinema or Horror films of Asia". That said, we seem to use both terms on wikipedia, with articles like British horror cinema and Horror films of Cambodia. Is there a standard or a preference for how we should title these? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If sources discuss horror films from a certain region as a cohesive genre or collective, then it might make sense to name the article "... cinema", especially if the sources call it that. Otherwise "horror films of" seems more neutral. Nardog (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found both terms used commonly. I mean, we could play a numbers game. But just some examples:
  • The book "Korean Horror Cinema" (2013) by Alison Peirse
  • The book "Hong Kong Horror Cinema" from Daniel Martin, Gary Bettinson
  • "Indian Horror Cinema" from Mithuraaj Dhusiya
  • "Introduction to Japanese Horror Film" by Colette Balmain
James Monaco in his book How to Read a Film The “filmic” is that aspect of the art that concerns its relationship with the world around it; the “cinematic” deals with the esthetics and internal structure of the art [...] in general we use these three names for the art in a way that closely parallels this differentiation: “movies,” like popcorn, are to be consumed; “cinema” (at least in American parlance) is high art, redolent of esthetics; “film” is the most general term we use with the fewest connotations.
So I think I agree with you @Nardog:, I'll probably go towards "Horror films of Asia" or similar items over Asian horror cinema. I'll wait a bit to see if others want to chime in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Universal Studios, Inc.#Requested move 31 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Universal Studios, Inc.#Requested move 31 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=1246522501"